I appreciate your replies both to us and to JIm very much. That clears up everything.

I am not against 3D per se, but right now I have serious doubts about it in its current incarnation.

First, I am skeptical of the technology as it stands right now because it seems to be little more than a gimmick being forced on people to wring more dollars out of the filmgoing audience in tough economic times. I am very irrititated that there is not a choice between 2D and 3D for practically ALL the children's films and blockbusters out there this summer (oh, it shows on one "token" 2D screening but that's only 2 or 3 showings a week, in all the theaters in my town) and those 3D shows are a full $4 more than regular ticket price. I have no financial problem with it, being single, but for a family pinching pennies these days it could be a problem. Concessions cost enough! As I have repeatedly said, 3 or 4 yrs ago I watched Beowulf in 3D for only $1.50 more than regular ticket price and loved it. IMO, a 3D film should not cost any more regular ticket price than that. Anything more is gouging and unfair. The price will have to come down considerably for me to be favorable to it.

Secondly, don't get me wrong, but I don't think the technolgy has evolved yet to a point where I am impressed with it. It's great at first, but after the first half-hour it is a huge distraction. And not all films are suitable for 3D--at least in its current incarnation. Something like Beowulf or action films are great, but as it stands now, films like dramas or romantic comedies are not suitable. I know for a fact that if LOTR were put into 3D right now, the intrusion of 3D in the quieter scenes, such as Bag End, Rivendell, the Golden Hall, and the Arwen scenes it would be huge irritating distraction and would take me completely out of the story. Face it, in the end 3D is going to have to look more like seamless 2D for me to be impressed. And the glasses will have to go. They are completely unecessary.

At the current rate of development, how long do you think it may be before 3D gets to this point? Jim may be able to answer this.

Thirdly, some of us are concerned that fascination with 3D technology is being undertaken at the expense of important things like sotry, character and emotion, still the most important things in a picture. Most 3D blockbusters this summer have been sorely lacking in these things. Buchanicus and I had an extended discussion of "District 9" and Avatar in the "Avatar" thread over in OT, which has now fallen to the 2nd page down there. Based on what you saw, I sincererely hope that Mr. Cameron has a great story with the kind of unforgettable characters that we will fall in love with, that he has peopled his past films with. I have faith that he can accomplish this..I hope.

Lastly, I am very interested to learn that apparently there are huge vision/eyesight issues for older 3D viewers. The population of the US and many other countries is rapidly aging and reading some comments on here, I am finding out that the technology is not suitable for middle-aged and older viewers. Before the technolgy can become completely acessable to the entire filmgoing population, it will have to be cleaned up to the point where these issues are resolved. And Hollywood has got to stop concentrating on the younger and "four quandrant" family audiences--people under 50, and face the fact that demographically, they can't continue to make the huge sums of money they want without reaching out to this audience. Such antiquated things as dramas and sophisticated (NOT snarky) romantic comedies will have to come back if Hollywood is to survive. And films for women too. IMO the film industry in the end is NOT going to live and die on the blockbuster. The studio heads have GOT to get past this "huge and instant profit" metality and open themselves up to more "middle-range" films. District 9 has shown a path to how this can be successfully done, and at a fraction of the cost. (Now THERE's a film that would have been great in 3-D!) How will 3D accomadate this? (This is a 30-something woman speaking.)

And lastly: in a nutshell, someone has to convince me WHY we need this technology so much. SorryFilm preservationsits and historians working in film libraries in Hollywood are finding out, with alarm, that analog film prints from decades ago are in remarkable great shape, whereas the first digital prints from the 80's and early '90's are already fading. I am concerned that digital technolgy may not last as long as traditional film prints..has any thought been given to longevity and preservation issues, or are film-makers been to dazzled by the wonder of the present?

Oh--and I guess I'm very lucky to have an IMAX theater in my town! There are less than 500 worldwide? Albany, NY is VERY fortunate then!